Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Still_Difference5461 t1_isw2pz2 wrote

Reply to comment by SomberPony in Phantom Forests: Why Ambitious Tree Planting Projects Are Failing by filosoful

Honestly I think trees do have the potential to address climate change by moderating temperatures, providing a moisture in the atmosphere, sheltering wildlife and people from heat, absorbing water, and creating rain.

1

SomberPony t1_isw36m6 wrote

And all that is pointless so long as the amount of CO2 goes up. Eventually the heat is high enough that RUBISCO breaks down and plants are unable to photosynthize. Trees are great for many of the reasons you list. They are NOT a solution for climate change.

End burning mined hydrocarbons for energy and then plant as many trees as you want.

1

Still_Difference5461 t1_isw3q8h wrote

We gotta do both frankly. I hear carbon sequestration would work by planting trees and then cutting them down once they reach maturity. Then you burn the trees for energy, capture the carbon from burning, and bury it along with the ash. So we do need to plant the trees. That is definitely an important part of fighting climate change.

2

SomberPony t1_iswfyfj wrote

Nope. We have to stop burning mined hydrocarbons for energy. That is our number one priority period. No sequestration, unless it's part of a plan for eventual elimination. Pipelines leak, wells are improperly sealed, and it hasn't been demonstrated that the CO2 can't leak. In addition, as I have said before, at high temperatures, Rubisco breaks down. That means photosynthesis stops of c3 plants.

EVERYTHING that isn't getting off mined hydrocarbons for energy is a distraction. Planting trees. Whinging about agriculture. Sequestration. ALL of it. It's all a distraction from relentlessly replacing as much of our energy with non-mined hydrocarbon sources. That may mean hydrogen fueled aircraft and cargo ships, and electrifying the land based transportation grid. And yeah, it SUCKS when your native land gets a solar farm dropped down on it or you have windmills in your formerly picturesque ranch view. Know what sucks more? Burning alive in forest fires.

Once again, once you've achieved not burning mined hydrocarbons for power, plant all the damned trees you want. I'll lend you a shovel. But that is step two. It will never fix the problem, only delay it.

2

Still_Difference5461 t1_iswacpf wrote

Also those were mangroves too so planting those is also about managing floods and reducing erosion, not just co2

1

SomberPony t1_iswg2q4 wrote

Sure, but that is a local problem. Climate is global, and hits EVERY locality, and so it takes priority.

1

Still_Difference5461 t1_iswhhjp wrote

I dunno man, people have greater ability to solve local problems than global problems.

1

SomberPony t1_iswjdnc wrote

Actually, no. The banning of CFC's is a great example. CFC's were destroying the ozone layer. Nations agreed internationally to ban their production and use. Those bans were enforced and now the ozone layer is regenerating.

Developed nations need to help developing nations to adopt non-mined carbon fuel sources with grants and interest free loans. Them having the technology is more important than making them 'pay' for it.

1